Urban Farm and Community Garden Hybrid Models: A Case Study of the Huerta del Valle Community Garden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines models of community gardens and urban farms and determined a successful hybrid model for future implementation at the Huerta del Valle Community Garden. This was accomplished through analyzing the unique benefits and drawbacks of community gardens and urban farms as defined by the author, and then determining the components of each model that would maximize Huerta del Valle’s social and economic potential. Community gardens are defined in this thesis as places where community members can grow their own food in individual plots, and these spaces often contribute to community building, hands-on gardening education, and improved food access. Urban farms are defined as business models that produce food to sell to the community both to support the business and to improve community food access. Through research of existing community garden, urban farm, and hybrid models, the author determined that the most effective hybrid model includes intensive crop production, crop sales onsite as well as in farmers’ markets and delivery methods, a large community garden, and education programs for the community. The author then offered Huerta del Valle a potential model that includes these components as well as a store front, cooking lessons, value-added products, a Community Supported Agriculture program, and specific themed gardening classes. This complete model will potentially increase Huerta del Valle’s scope so it is able to improve healthy food access throughout Ontario while creating an enduring economic model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".